TheLurkingFox

Just been to the avant-premiere in Paris: The movie is absolutely magical. Not to oversell it, but it's a must-see. It's funny but very moving, with a perfect blend of "comedy" and seriousness (because these were dark times, both for the miners and the gay community). The dialogues are really good, well though-out, and delivered convincingly by a stellar cast, who are always believable in their roles.

It's not just "good for an indie gay movie" - it's an incredibly powerful movie that ranks right up with the best of them this year (and with stars such as Bill Nighy and Imelda Satunton, and a probably fair budget, it doesn't have an "amateur" / "indie" feel at all either).

Anyway, worth the price of admission (unlike, unfortunately, so many movies these days...)

Let's be honest: Many Icelandic movies are definitely "acquired taste", and are not of much interest to most people unless they're into Iceland.

That is NOT the case with this movie. It's an awesome story, with incredible characters, and you don't need to know anything about Iceland or even be interested in Iceland to get it. It's based on a TV series, but I hadn't seen it before and didn't need to. I'm sure I probably missed some jokes, but it really wasn't a problem. I just read a description of the movie before reading it, which helped, but that's not even necessary. Also, the ending was great and really satisfying.

As cliché as it sounds, this movie made me laugh and made me cry. I hope it gets sold in international markets because it's a really, really good standard bearer for Icelandic cinema. I don't often give out 10s, but this movie really deserved it.

Compared to the first episode of the saga (although the plot has nothing to do with this one's) - it's obvious there's more budget, and that makes for much better camera work and costumes.

Also, (and although budget shouldn't have anything to do with it), now there's a plot. The same theme (revenge) is treated in a much more interesting way here. One key way in which this movie is more effective is that we get to know the character(s) before they die. We see treason. Therefore when the main character wants revenge, it doesn't seem completely gratuitous: We actually understand his motives and even root for him.

The "Christianity in Iceland" theme, which was already here in the precedent movie, is also much more interestingly developed. Trausti is a believable "convert": He professes his Christianity and he wants to believe in "Jesus Christ" but in the end he is a Norseman who (presumably) grew up with Nordic beliefs. He believes in Vengeance, he believes in Jesus Christ but isn't entirely indifferent to Odin (and for someone raised in a polytheistic faith this is only natural).

It doesn't hurt that (most of) the first movie's ridiculous synth-peruvian-flute score has been abandoned in favour of more time-appropriate medieval tunes. The camera work is also much better, with beautiful landscapes and the feeling that Iceland is bigger than *that one shore*.

All around a surprisingly good movie (even though the best Viking movie around in my opinion still is, by far, Utlaginn).

Why You Should Watch It: Vikings! Iceland! Vikings on horses! Vikings on horses that probably look pretty much like vikings on horses did (no horned helmets here).

Why It's Not The Best Movie Ever Made However: It's obviously been made on a tight budget, shot in only two locations which seem to be about 3 meters apart from each other, and the cheap 80s-synth Peruvian Flute rendition of Á Sprengisandi isn't helping either (there are only two tunes in the entire movie, and they come back very, very, very regularly). I won't even mention the "omg knife!!" sound effect that accompanies EVERY shot where someone has a knife or a sword, even if there's no way in real life they would have made any kind of sound. Also, tomato-blood.

As for the plot well... I'm not sure there was enough to fill almost two hours. It pretty much feels like you're watching the same thing again and again and again.

I haven't been so disappointed in a Star Trek for a long time.

This episode is a complete cop-out. it would have been interesting to study a genderless society. But of course, the episode just goes to demonstrate the exact contrary of the premise: there can never be a REAL genderless society according to Star trek. OF COURSE in the end they're all either male or female, and OF COURSE the one Jnail they encounter is very interested in genders and wants to be one of them...(apparently they've never met a gendered society... oh wait actually they have! so why the questions?). On the other hand of course, no crewman from the Enterprise is remotely interested in the lack of gender. As usual, the "aliens" are aliens, while the humans aren't really alien to the aliens (because you know, they're the ones who are NORMAL).

I'm not even speaking of the fact that apparently no one on the Star Trek team is aware of the difference between "gay" and "transgender". Apparently the idea was to make something about gay people - without featuring ANYTHING vaguely gay of course, which is why Soren is obviously a girl. But in the end, that show is about gender identity, nothing else. And apparently it absolutely impossible to be something else than either male or female in the entire universe. Which is not only stupid but boring.

But it also reveals a larger problem in Star Trek - as much as I love this show - the inability to stick to its own premise: ST pretends to explore different types of societies but usually ends up being incapable to exploring the idea of REALLY different cultures. The Vulcans are supposed to be emotionless, except that we see them struggling with their emotions 90% of the time. The Jnail are supposedly genderless except they actually have genders that they repress and any genderlessness is naturally born out of a dictatorship etc...

True difference is difficult. It's hard to understand, confusing and it's what brings about conflicts. Star Trek is all talk (Picard, Janeway, ... always profess having to abide by the difference in cultures) but is no walk (the races "imagined" most often end up reinforcing whatever status quo the White Straight Western World holds dear at the time the episode is created). This episode (and many others!) could have been so much more!

An Early Frost is, I feel, more at place as feature in a (Gay) Film History class than as a movie proper.

THE GOOD

The fact that it brought such great awareness about AIDS and was the first major TV movie talking about the disease so openly is great. It's positive, and although the disease is shown quite clearly (you see / hear about people dying, you see discrimination, you see the physical and mental toll it's taking on the victims), it's never too pessimistic either. The main character doesn't die at the end, which for a movie about AIDS is a nice relief.

THE BAD

The movie is often a bit melodramatic, and the music doesn't help. The acting is often wooden, and sometimes it feels more like a "special episode" out of a mid-afternoon soap opera than a real movie (even TV movie).

Also, although it is of course not the movie's fault, the information about AIDS is very dated, and the people's reaction to it seem often weird. (The boyfriend doesn't get immediately tested??)

THE UGLY

The ugly thing about the movie is its portrayal of gay people. To make it more palatable to the rest of the country, the gay couple is treated more like a pair of good college pals than a loving couple. You never see them kiss of share any physical intimacy other than a hand on the shoulder, and they lack any kind of real chemistry.

The boyfriend doesn't fight to have Micheal come back to him, doesn't really seem to care to be separated from Micheal, and when he learns Micheal is in the hospital, he doesn't come right away. The same, Micheal barely seems to want to come home, etc. Nothing about them says "couple" to me. Can you imagine a movie where a young married couple had the husband become sick, go home to his parents and have the wife visit him once in a while, "it's good to see you, I hope you come home soon"?? No. I didn't think so.

The movie is over melodramatic at some points (the father's reactions for example), and under-dramatic at others. Micheal's boyfriend doesn't seem to care that much, Micheal apparently doesn't have any other friends that might care about him, he shows almost no reaction when his hospital buddy dies, and the buddy's story (getting locked out by his boyfriend), although plausible (things like that did happen) isn't countered by more realistic portrayals of gay people's reactions to the disease and how the gay community organized itself to respond to the disease when nobody would do anything.

In the end, while on the surface pleading for gay acceptance, the movie is actually almost homophobic in its treatment, and relies on rather homophobic clichés to make its story (= gay men only care about themselves, they have no friends, nobody who cares about them, their only friendships are superficial, they're all promiscuous and in the end, only the heterosexual family isn't superficial).

Honestly this movie was one of the worst gay movies I've ever seen.

The audience was fidgeting for the whole length, I saw a few people go out in the middle of the movie and not come back. I personally stayed the whole time and I couldn't believe the abyssal emptiness of it.

2 main problems:

1/ The movie is supposed to cover 8 years (from 1998 to 2006) but everyone is wearing 2012 clothes and 2012 haircuts. Not just the people on the street - all the actors too. And in 8 years, they don't change clothes or haircuts or anything not even once. The guy starts and ends with the exact same shaggy beard. I know they probably shot the movie under 2 weeks but it would be nice if they made an effort to at least pretend they didn't. I'm not saying that just to be anal about it - but because it's one of the main things that kill the movie because even with the title cards warning you we've changed years their whole story seems to last 1 month, certainly not 8 years. Difficult to get emotionally involved.

2/ The drug. I didn't know it was a drug movie, but it is. It's closer to Trainspotting than to a gay romance. And I hated the casual way it's shown, as if all gay men smoked crack and it was normal. I've been around, and I've never seen ANYBODY smoke crack, ever. Not saying it doesn't exist but to play it like it's a normal occurrence is just stupid.

Then there are many other things: A guy who's in the closet, with a girlfriend... and 1 month later he's kissing his boyfriend in the street? And of course we saw nothing that showed his evolution. The problem just disappeared. There were definite pacing problems as well (the first 25 minutes, everything is happy-in-wonderland, and you're just shifting on your seat waiting for the movie to start).

The only saving point is that the actor playing the drug addict is incredibly good looking. Apart from that, you'd tell me the movie was sponsored by the American Family Association and the FRC, I wouldn't be surprised. it just plays into every single negative stereotype about gay people (save for the child molesting, I guess they didn't have the time).

My Beautiful Laundrette is one of the most over-hyped movies I've ever seen.

But then again there's an explanation: As one of the first ever real gay-themed movies, it was praised just for the very fact it talked about the Pakistani community and had a gay aspect. Two things that just weren't done before.

But does it make it a good movie? No. It's long, boring, difficult to understand because it jumps from scene to scene without ever really settling on anything, and there are two many characters introduced at the same time (most with mind-numbingly boring story lines), too many things that are implied but never really said out loud. It could be "subtle" but it just ends up being "confusing".

In the end, it's a movie that wants to be about being gay, but also about being Pakistani in London, but also about being a white thug / homeless young guy in 80s London, but also about being a young closeted guy, and also about a guy turning an old business into a new shiny one, while also being about drug dealers, and about standing up to your community for love (a la Romeo and Juliette). In short, the film never knows what it wants to be about, and all is lost.

I think most people who love this movie are the people who saw it when it had just come out and THEY had just come out as well (or were about to, or something) - I'm sure there's a very emotional connection to this movie for a lot of people, that is completely unrelated to the actual film's worth.

A great musical about a group of singers/musicians who arrive in town and cause the local troop of singers to rebel against their intrusion.

Great music, great costumes and a nice ending, too. The songs are really catchy, and the singers great. I guess the singers must be famous Chinese actresses because I'm sure I've seen at least one of them in another musical, although I don't know her name, and not speaking Chinese cannot look her up.

Definitely look it up if you like traditional Chinese musicals. It's in the same register as The East Is Red (Dong Fang Hong, 1965) or Revolutionary Songs For History (1963), without the communist aspect. Here the songs are all traditional airs and the period must be the 19th century (definitely not 1967).

Before Stonewall is a unique piece because it was made in 1984, 15 years after Stonewall: It was still fresh in people's memory, it wasn't so long before.

Above all, it means that the people interviewed in the program were old enough to remember what the 20-30s were like, remember an experience in the army during the Second World War, remember life as a young gay person in the fifties. Most of those people wouldn't be able to be interviewed today: Most probably died of old age and many probably died of the greatest tragedy to ever affect the gay community a bit after the documentary was made: the aids epidemic.

Thus this documentary is invaluable to anyone interested in gay history, and one can really feel grateful that it was made back then, that someone decided to collect all those memories and amazing life experiences, or they would have been lost for ever.

Disclaimer: I am not a communist, and recognize this play is pure propaganda, put forward by a regime that killed hundreds of thousands, etc etc.

But still, what a grandiose play! The music is delicious and addictive, the colours bright and wonderfully kitch.

If you can take propaganda with a pinch of salt and humour, you'll love that musical for all the great tunes and amazing dance numbers. It stars many performers (I'm guessing about 100 singer/dancers and a choir of about 300), amongst whom are some of the best singers China has ever produced, who then went on having great careers.

Amusingly, by dating from before the Cultural Revolution, it stars many ethnic minorities and traditional dresses (actually, it makes a point of showing off diverse cultural peoples), Uncle Toming them to death by having them sing loving hymns and peans to Mao. 2 years after the release, all of this would be killed by the now official battle against the "4 old" (traditions and customs) which were supposedly a barrier to "real" communism.

So it's also a tale about the "good years" of communist China, a time long gone and already disappearing when the movie was released.

One of the best aspects of this movie (which is NOT, as it has been marketed, a horror movie) is the depiction of the internet into a physical space. It is really, really well done, and anyone (even slightly) familiar with the world of chatrooms will be blown away by the realism.

The movie goes back and forth between "real life" (the outside world) and internet life (the conversations and chats of the protagonists, here represented into a physical reality, so as not to spend an hour and 46 minutes filming youth typing on a keyboard).

It is not a horror movie, but rather a good psychological thriller, with the story of a disturbed teen who tries to alleviate his own misery by making others miserable. It is also a good look into the seedier, sleazier parts of the internet, where anything can happen, and where violence (although entirely psychological) can be very, very real.

I put off watching this movie for exactly 4 years. To me, the premise sounded boring, and there's enough free porn on the internet that I don't need to rent or buy a movie like that. Finally I saw it, and was blown away. Never did I ever become aroused by anything on screen, because the sex isn't meant to be erotic, although it is very, very explicit.

I loved the characters and the character development although I wish we had seen more of Caleb, especially in the end. This movie has a certain other-worldly feel to it, shown from the get-go by the papier-mâché representation of New York. (That, and the fact that it's an indie film that couldn't afford an helicopter). It's happening both right now in New York and 35 years ago in San Francisco, if you know what I mean. As a character remarks at one point, "This is just like the sixties, only with much less hope"...

I loved that this movie showed real human beings who gather occasionally at these boho parties... Unlike RENT for example, which tried so very hard to represent bohemians it came out as forced and cliché. In Shortbus, you get the real deal: Performance artists (JD Samson and Daniela Sea in an incredible scene), a crazy cabaret-like maître d', a lost therapist, an ex hustler and a right now dominatrix prostitute... All of whom are really touching and humanized, not cliché versions of the real people out there.

There is good sex in that movie, an amazing cinematography, and above all, a good well-rounded plot and characters. In my opinion, a real masterpiece, that (for once) deserved all the buzz it got at its release.

Everyone is saying it, but you probably don't understand/believe it if you haven't read the book. I'm going to repeat it one last time, then give you a little metaphor: This movie has nothing to do with the original masterpiece that is the original book.

To represent that statement, let's take a famous, good book that everyone has read. Winnie the Pooh for example. And now let's give it the movie equivalent of what Simon Wells' The Time Machine (2002) is to The Time Machine (the book).

In this movie called "Winnie the Pooh":

1/ Christopher Robin is named Bryan Jones.

2/ Bryan Jones is a 24 year old young man with a traumatic past. This traumatic past takes 34 minutes of the movie.

3/ He lost his girlfriend in a violent car accident (shown on screen), and is now having delusions.

4/ Winnie The Pooh is a giant robot with machine guns instead of his arms.

5/ Bryan Jones befriend Pooh and together they decide to save the Earth.

6/Tigger has been turned into a hot young female with big breasts who has a romance with Bryan Jones while he saves the Earth.

etc. See? That is probably what Simon Wells would produce if he ever had to do a Winnie the Pooh movie. Thank God, after that Time Machine movie, he's probably been barred from a Hollywood set for the rest of his life.

Honestly. Read the book. It's fun, intelligent, short (you need an hour or two to read it), is both adventurous and riddled with interesting social and Darwinian commentary without being too geeky. And, as it's now free of rights, it's findable everywhere on the internet or your iPhone/iPad for free! No excuse!

This is the movie about the 12th Cenutyr that I've felt is the closest in spirit with what has been written about that time by the people themselves. Far from the ridiculous Hollywood accounts of Robin Hood and Excalibur, this movie is nothing more (and nothing less!) than a filmed chanson de geste. A troop of actors/singers portray the Chrétien de Troyes poem. Half the story is told by speaking, the other half singing. To be able to stick to the text, the characters often talk about themselves in the third person: it is effective in distancing the minstrels from the characters they impersonate. I pity those who see it but can't speak French, as Chrétien's prose has no equal, and the English translation is much more trivial than the other-worldly formulations of the author, faithfully rendered in the film...

I'd advise greatly to read Perceval before watching the movie. Only then can one see how faithful to the spirit of the author Rohmer has managed to be. The original poem already takes place in some sort of magical, fantastic land and time, where everything is made of gold and velvet, and where not everything has to make sense. The Middle Ages literature tradition is very, very big on symbolism, and therefore mustn't be taken too literally. That's what Rohmer does here: castles and trees are symbols.

The last aspect I shall mention is the resemblance between the movie and medieval paintings. Watching he movie, you often feel like watching an animated medieval fresco. Colors, clothing, positions, everything is taken directly from those depictions of medieval life. The scene of the Passion is made of everything good in that movie: very good music, amazing costumes and colors, symbolism, fresco-like positions... This movie is a masterpiece.

A historical drama about a time that is, unfortunately, not so far behind us. The time when acknowledging that homosexuality was disgusting and an abomination was the required prelude to any conversation about the subject. If conversation there was, because as Jeremy Wolfenden, the gay son of Sir John Wolfenden (chair of the committee) points out nobody talked about it.

It is difficult now to imagine that not 50 years ago, and well into the 60s, homosexuality was one of the biggest taboo in society. Something deemed so distasteful that no polite conversation would even broach the subject. This made for TV drama makes a good job of putting modern viewers back in the 50s zeitgeist - which has to be done before one can start talking about the Wolfenden Report and show what a revolution it was. It is a good drama, only made better by real-life drama: That Sir John's very own son was a "queer" and quite unapologetically so.

I thought it had the right rhythm, and though obviously made on a restricted budget, it has the quality of a BBC film. The actors are good, and the writers and directors have managed to make a good, sound movie about a subject that is often too forgotten: gay life in the 50-60s. It is also quite engaging, which is more than one could hope for a movie about... a committee. The only reproach I would make is that one doesn't see clearly whether 3 years of research/auditions have made any impact on the committee members' views of homosexuality. Not even on Wolfenden himself, which is quite a shame.

In any case, a good movie, definitely "to see" - if you can find it.

All in all, I thought it was a really good miniseries. Ian McKellen is awesome as usual, the visuals are good, and the story is riveting. Except episode number 4 which I thought was a bit more feeble than the others.

However, I've seen a lot of people criticize it for being illogical, incomprehensible, too weird or too complicated. Or others didn't say that but obviously didn't understand any of it and it spoiled their enjoyment.

Which is why I'll try in my review to give my interpretation of the series. If it helps some people coming for answers here, then so be it. (I know I needed a few days after the series to understand everything, and others' comments helped too).

*********** SPOILERS *****************

Summakor is a giant surveillance company. They spy on people, thousands of thousands of people, and through the reports of their employees (like Michael), they notice who's "in need" according to Curtis, to go to the Village. (More about that later).

Then they give them, I think, the famous red pill whose contents are "unheard of". It allows them to access to that other plane of consciousness which is a common consciousness (whose support is the wife's mind). When they do, their most "active" part is transferred to the village. They go on living, but they're more subdued, because their main attention is in the Village.

That's why Michael notices something. He notices that there are people who began to change. I think it means that they began to change when they were in the village and their "exterior" NYC being started to get more subdued, less "sick". Maybe more automatic.

I think Curtis' idea is a very patronizing social control ideology. He noticed some people who, for some reason, didn't fit in society. In some cases, they were real mentally ill people (like Sara/313), in some other cases they were just undesirables (like the homeless girl). In the case of Michael, I guess Summakor (who obviously watch their employees just like they watch other people), noticed that he became dispassionate about his work, troubled etc. He suddenly didn't fit the *company* anymore. But it was dangerous for them to have someone resign, plus they wanted to know why he had resign: Had he discovered the truth?

So they got him in the village probably without him knowing (by slipping the pill in something he ate/drank?). BUT 6 was an exception, because for whatever reason his mind didn't submit. He was a lucid dreamer: instead of beginning a new existence in this new plane of consciousness, he remembered who he was in "real" life. Later on when 2 began to doubt, and maybe lose interest in the village (for a number of reasons that are hinted at during the series), 2 decided to make 6 the new number 2: precisely because he was a lucid dreamer. As the head of the village, he needed someone who would remain conscious that the whole village thing was not the physical reality. And 6 was that kind of person, so he chose him.

Then you have to understand that what at the beginning looks like flashbacks are actually what is happening in the reality to their physical bodies. Michael resigns but he's still as agitated as before because even after they had him get the pill, for and unknown reason he reacts differently to it and doesn't seem to gets subdued. So he's still conscious and everything. And then he meets Lucy in both worlds. Then he's recuperated by Curtis who wants to plant the idea of taking over the village in his head (so he explains everything to him, shows him real life Sara etc.). And the more 6 fights and time goes by, the more he's able to know what goes on in physical reality at the same time. Which is why in the last episode, you almost have the two things happen simultaneously on screen.

Then of course at the end, 6 has surrendered, and accepts the position of 2, selling out completely. Which is when you think about it the worst and most terrifying ending they could have imagined. Hence the look of sheer despair from 313 and the tears.

A few others dilemmas that I think may be solved by these answers:

• Why is 2's wife sleeping? I think that she has come to hate the Village, and that she "sacrificed herself". She needs to be comatose in real life so that she can dream up the village, but in the village she could be "alive" (as is seen when she's given the black pill). In my opinion, she sleeps inside the Village world too as an escape. It is one of the reasons 2 begins to doubt himself in the end: he has forced his wife to dream up this village, has made her the prisoner in a way, and she can't take it anymore so she's asked him to help her "evade".

• Is 11-12 real? I think that yes. In the reality of the village, all of the kids are real and have their own existence. However, as the wife explains to her son, they don't have "real"-world physical bodies so they cannot leave the village and "go to the other place". Their death is a real, village-world physical death.

• Which leads to: where do villagers go when they die? They "wake up". They're booted out definitely from the Village. I think it shows that it's a form of punishment. They're afraid of Village death because it means they're going to have to function consciously again in the real world. In a way, that is quite ironic since 93 "never gave up", but just committing suicide would have led him to liberation...

Others have explained already why this was such a travesty. I'll just pile on that, to say that this remake is really a catastrophe.

The actors can't act, or rather, overact all the time, and what they do completely contradicts what they say. Judas is supposed to be, according to the lyrics, a fundamentally good man who finds himself misunderstanding Jesus and tries to stop him before the latter compromises their lives. In this production, Judas is just this meanie-meanie-pooh with a leather jacket who whine all the time and is violent with women.

Jesus is this ridiculous guy with only two facial expressions who faints every two seconds and seems to not know what he's doing for the greater part of the movie.

I'm not even talking about the ridiculous set and costumes which makes the "film" look like a bad late 90s MTV music video - a mix between S Club 7 and The Matrix. It's already dated, unlike the 73 version which for all its bell-bottomry is timeless.

You've seen the 73 version? Don't bother with this one - find some vids on youtube for a good laugh and that's it. Never seen any version yet? RUN!!!! RUN and get the 73 version - a real film, with a real story, real actors and real singers.

I am very interested in pre-Stonewall gay life, and as such I was delighted to see this film. However, if I found it historically and cinematographically interesting, I didn't enjoy it per se.

The George character is a lesbian that doesn't care to hide that she's a lesbian. She's not apologetic, which is good, but she also displays a certain number of traits which make it very difficult to like her: she seems to have no understanding of social norms or play. She's unable to conduct herself like an adult. She interrupts people at the bad moment, yells on her girlfriend and insults her in front of everyone, etc etc. She gets drunk all the time, and is a mean drunk.

Why is she like that? You'll have the greatest difficulties to convince me that it is not some homophobic logic behind. Just the way the scene in the bar is filmed you understand from where the movie comes from: It is a film made by a heterosexual man for a (60s) heterosexual public. It is not by chance that she ends up alone, drunk and desperate. (read: The Celluloid Closet by Vito Russo...)

In the end, I had heard that The Killing of Sister George and The Boys in the Band were two very homophobic movies made in the late 60s presenting gay people as desperate souls. I saw TBITB, and it went directly in my top 10 of all times movies, and I can argue against anyone who tells me it is homophobic. I tried to have the same take on TKSG, but I couldn't. While TBITB is a gay movie made by a gay man (not Friedkin, but Crowley) with gay people and for gay people (it used to be a play on Broadway), TKSG is a straight movie played by straight actors for a straight audience, and pretending to portray the life of lesbians as it is but failing miserably.

I am rarely this severe. In fact, I usually am rather indulgent with movies dealing with gay themes, because there are so few of them. But this one takes the cake. I honestly haven't seen many films that bad in my life. Maybe The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen was this bad.

Anyway, back to THIS story. Wait, sorry, there IS no story. No plot. This is just some days in the life of people we don't care about, we never learn to care about, talking about things we don't care about and doing things not even them care about. This film is like a pathetic mix between Longtime Companion (for the AIDS theme and the "one day in the life of" idea) and The Boys in the Band (because... You know. 8 gay men, talking). But it takes the worst of both of these fantastic films and makes a cliché-filled, boring, dull movie out of it.

And there you really realize that it takes, indeed, a lot of talent to write (whether in a screenplay or staged play) about characters that the audience doesn't know and make them interesting without a plot. After all, in TBITB or in Longtime Companion, there isn't much plot either, but the characters are interesting in and for themselves. You want to know more about them, you are moved by them and by what happens to them. TBITB is about ONE night in the life of some people, and still by the end of the movie I felt like I knew them. L!V!C! is about half a dozen days in the life of some people, and still in the end I don't know anything about them. I don't know what unites them - they're supposedly friends but they don't get along with each other -, I don't know what drives them - but I know they drive a Volvo -, and I don't even believe them. It isn't funny or witty - though it desperately tries to be - and it's not campy - even if one of them like musicals -. It's just cliché and and boring.

Anyway, I really feel like I've lost 2 hours of my life by watching this movie. Thank god I saw it for free!

I've just seen the movie for the first time ever (I'm a 20 year-old student) and, as a young gay man who's also very interested in gay movies and gay history, I thought it was extremely interesting. This is a personal analysis of three aspects of the movie - it is not a summary or a complete review.

I think that this movie has been vilified without much reason. Yes it shows self-hatred, but only to denounce it. I think that the way it was reviled in the post-Stonewall era is a sign that the movie hit too close to home for many at the time (which is understandable). No one likes to have their own flaws reflected to them too clearly - an issue the play also addresses... For me it was also a matter of saying "this is what you are - change it", which was taken as provocation in the gay liberation movement of afterward. It is, after all, the point of much of the cruel exchanges between Michael and Harold: Telling the horrible, cruel truth to make the other one react.

For me, in context - and I strongly advise to read the wonderful "Celluloid Closet" by Vito Russo (or at least see the filmed version that was made) - it *is* indeed a breakthrough movie. It shows a bunch of gay men, who are friends. Gone is the vision of the lonely closeted suicidal queer. Maybe these people are not totally happy, maybe they drink too much, maybe they snap at each other, maybe they're not automatically out and proud but they're not alone. They have friends that stay with them through the hardships, friends that forgive and forget, and they have a sense of community. I'm 20, living and 2008, and still this is something that I can identify with. 40 years after, this is something of the gay community that has survived. And that this film shows it is immensely important.

Another terribly interesting topic that has to do with gay life and is both contextual and still relevant today is the relation with the straight world. The straight world, that does not always understand the gay world (the taxi driver, the deliverer) and even scorns it (Alan, the woman on the street). To me, the way Michael immediately goes back in the closet when Alan comes is extremely important. He respects this "very close total stranger" more than his friends at first - he's more concerned with the straight man's comfort level than his friends'. But when Alan disses them, (concerning Emory mostly) Michael defends them. He is still ashamed, but he is adult enough and self-accepting enough not to pretend anymore. This relation of the gay world to the straight world is still a riddle for us in 2008 - how to behave "outside", who to tell, who to hide from, how to handle these colliding worlds, the private from the public, and so on? The question is not dated, and the answer of the play isn't either.

The final topic that I want to talk about is the friendship theme. As I've said, there is this group of friends. But more precisely, there is an important triangle: Harold/Michael/Donald. Are they simply friends? Were they lovers? Are they still f**k buddies? Who are they, who were they, who do they hope to be? I do not subscribe to the idea of a love/hate relationship between Michael and Harold. For me, they do not hate each other. They love each other (Michael organizes the party, gets a personal gift... the glances etc.). But Harold becomes harsher with Michael when the latter begins to drink and becomes hostile. It is a way of keeping him in control, and still not wanting to spoil the party. Harold would have been very mean, he isn't, he plays it cool. Michael becomes drunker and drunker and meaner and meaner. But, after all is said and done, Harold lets Michael know that he will still be there in the morning. Donald on the other side is the archetype of the ex-lover/best friend/ future boyfriend(?). It is very common in the gay world to have for best friend an ex-lover, an old flame or an ex- boyfriend (sometimes of a long-term relationship). Gay friendships are often sexually ambiguous - such is Donald and Michael's. Everyone thinks they're lovers, Michael makes sure that Donald feels "settled" and that the Saturday night thing is a fixture (the toothbrush, the question in the end). And Donald is the only one other than Harold that Michael doesn't touch during the telephone game, and the only one he doesn't harm and doesn't attack during the night. They share an intimate relationship, and Donald plays the support role for Michael, without being judging like Harold. And he is there in the end, non-judgmental, still committed.

In conclusion, yes this film is cruel, yes it may be disturbing, but it is also witty, hilarious and, for me, full of hope. It is a strikingly real portrayal of gay relationships, of the gay family, and even some things have changed (the self-hatred, mostly), it is incredibly modern in the issues it deals with (coming out, the straight world, friendship, the community, homophobia...). It is a must-see for any gay person.

This is not a film for you if you like explosions, bombs, car pursuits, guns and drug. However, if you like quiet analyzes on everyday lives, carefully done portraits and human beings, then this could be your film.

The lives of the characters are well portrayed, without obscene voyeurism. They're just your everyday people: The stressed real estate agent, the quiet divorced Policeman, the nice chap sign painter etc... But they're all unique in their own way, and this is why the film never falls into caricature.

The "scandal" that threatens to be unleashed is finally more the town's blind conservatism, the film denounces. All told with a moving music and a delicate irony, this story of crossing destinies is a must-see. Especially the love story between Duck and Dan: It is a way more realistic view on gay life in a small town than Brokeback Mountain ever was...